Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
and 1914 showing more than seventy being due to some auxiliary pilgrims being counted among them.
Among the offices in the Church, therefore, held since the Apostles fell asleep, the only one whose exclusive function it is to address the whole Church is that of the "Secondarily Prophets." Calling a General Convention is inviting, exhorting, encouraging the brethren generally to assemble for worship, study and fellowship in the Lord's Word and Spirit. But such inviting, encouraging, exhorting, pertaining as they do to matters of faith and practice, are a part of the functions of the "Secondarily Prophets" office, which alone since the Apostles' death can Scripturally address the entire Church on matters of faith and practice. Because of his special power as "ruler over His household" "that Servant" called General Conventions; just as in the Apostles' times they would have been the proper ones so to do, though there is no record of General Conventions held in those times. But as before "that Servant's" time, any star—member, like Luther, Wesley, Miller, etc., with propriety called General Conventions, so now a star— member can call them. When no star-member officiates the other kind of secondarily prophets, pilgrims, if necessity makes it advisable, may call a General Convention. Their calling it obligates no one to come, even as Bro. Russell's calling Conventions did not so do. No General Convention can give anybody a right to call a General Convention; for it has not the authorization to address the General Church on matters of faith and practice, and, therefore, cannot give what it does not possess.
When did the Lord give any church or collection of churches the right to address the entire Church on a matter of faith and practice? Whoever so does busybodies in the office of the "Secondarily Prophets." Even Bro. Russell was doubtful as to the propriety of local conventions, and only reluctantly after several years of refusal would send pilgrims to "local" conventions not under his supervision, and even then
expressed to us his doubts as to the Lord's will on the propriety of such conventions. We, therefore, find that the only office now filled by living persons in the Little Flock, having the Divine authorization necessary to address the whole Church on faith and practice, is that of the "Secondarily Prophets." Therefore, we conclude that only prophets of this kind can properly so do; and therefore the star-members among them, and whenever such do not officiate, any others of these prophets, may call a General Convention, whose calling necessarily in its exhortations, encouragements, etc., implies the exercise of the office that alone can bring matters of faith and practice before the general Church. It is for this reason that the writer feels himself authorized by the Lord, because of the conditions in the Church, to call General Conventions. The friends assembled, e.g., at Asbury Park had not even been authorized by their home churches to empower a Committee to call these churches, let alone all others, to a convention; therefore, in addition to the above reasons, they could not give a Committee that power. According to the writer's understanding, therefore, a Committee as such cannot properly call such Conventions.
We never claimed, nor believed ourself to be a prophet who can by inspiration declare the future, etc., as F.H. Magee repeatedly intimates. At most, we claim to be but a fallible, uninspired prophetic student. If we have missed the mark in forecasting from certain Scriptures a few events, by the Lord's grace we have struck the mark in forecasting properly fifty times as many events based on separate passages and the parallel dispensations, as many brethren know; and like "that Servant" we humbly acknowledge our fallibility in forecasting certain things.
F.H. Magee claims in "A Brief Review," page 2, par. 1, that the "Secondarily Prophets" of 1 Cor. 12: 28 ceased with the gifts of the Spirit. Paul thinks otherwise. He says (Eph. 2: 11—13), "until we all
come," etc. So did "that Servant" (see Berean Comment on 1 Cor. 12: 28). The former's treatment of this passage, we are sorry to note, is somewhat similar in spirit to his casting, e.g., Elijah out of 2 Chro. 21: 12, and that for no other reason seemingly than that his theory is upset by the verse; and, therefore, seemingly the passage must be "wrested," so as not to stand against his view. May we not in all love suggest to him that it may be well not to wrest the Scriptures and Scriptural thoughts as the average lawyer does an opposing counsel's brief? It is a more dangerous procedure so to treat God's Word! For such procedures are more than genuine "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." They offer strange fire!
We add to the above some questions and answers on the "Secondarily Prophets."
Question:—If the Apostles are now teaching the Church through their writings, are we not to understand the "Secondarily Prophets" to be the Old Testament writers who teach the Church by their writings?
Answer:—The Old Testament writers are not teachers of the Church as members of it; because to be such teachers of the Church, they would have had to understand their message to the Church, and how to make it understood by the Church, and they would have had to share in membership in the Church—things that they did not do (1 Pet. 1: 10, 11; Matt. 11: 13; Col. 1: 26; Heb. 11: 39, 40); while to be Apostles and Prophets to the Church necessitates an understanding of the message and the ability to explain it (Eph. 3: 5; 1 Cor. 14: 6, 19, 22). Furthermore, to be one of these Prophets one would have to be a member of the Church, which is God's Temple and Christ's Body (Eph. 2: 20, 21; 4: 7, 11; 1 Cor. 12: 27, 28; Rom. 12: 5, 6); for since the foundation is a part of the building, antitypical foundation stones are parts of the antitypical Temple, which is not true of the Old Testament Prophets. Hence Eph. 2: 20 cannot refer to them. Above we showed how during the Eagle trial
our Pastor recognized that the "prophets" of this passage, being foundation stones, must refer to the non-apostolic general teachers of the Church as parts of the antitypical Temple; because the Old Testament Prophets were not members of the Church. By the expression, "Secondarily Prophets," persons, not writings and teachings, are meant, just as, by the expression Apostles not writings and teachings, but persons are meant, even if they do teach us now by their writings, as also do some of the Secondarily Prophets, e.g., Mark, Luke, etc.
Question:—If Eph. 4: 11-13 proves that the Prophets were to continue in the Church, would it not also prove that the Apostles would be with us to this time, since the same thing is said of them as is said of the Prophets? If it applies to the Apostolic writings, might it not also apply to their prophetic writings, they being prophets as well as Apostles?
Answer:—If the basis of the questioner's reasoning were correct, it would prove that the Apostles are also meant by the expression "evangelists," "pastors and teachers," since the Apostles were also (using these words in their general senses) evangelists, pastors and teachers; and consequently the only ones referred to in this passage as edifying servants of the Church would be the twelve Apostles. The questioner's mistake is due to his not rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2: 15), as is done in the above discussion on the distinction as to the general and particular senses of the word prophet. In the general sense all the Apostles were prophets. But Eph. 4: 11 uses the word prophets with particular reference to those whom 1 Cor. 12: 28 calls "Secondarily Prophets." That the "prophets" of Eph. 4: 11 are not the same persons as the "Apostles," referred to in the same verse, is evident from the Greek. The A.V. makes this sufficiently clear; the R.V. and the A.R.V. make it clearer: "And He gave some to be Apostles; and some, prophets," etc. The Improved Version
is the clearest of all: "And He gave some as Apostles, some as prophets," etc. The Greek expression, "tous men" and "tous de," prove that different persons are meant; for they are used to contrast the persons mentioned as separate and distinct. The Apostles, as the teachers of every member of the Body of Christ (John 17: 20), could not exercise their office in person after they were dead; they had to do this through their writings. Nor are these writings prophetic as contrasted with apostolic; for it was an essential function of the Apostolic office to teach inspirationally, not only of abstract principles, but also of persons, events and things, it making no difference whether these were past, present or future. It is not an essential function of the "Secondarily Prophets" to teach every member of the Body of Christ; nor even every member of the Body of Christ living, while they exercise their office as "Secondarily Prophets"; rather, generally speaking, their office authorizes and qualifies them to be teachers in the general Church in their own times, though exceptionally through their writings some of them have instructed brethren living after their own times; e.g., Mark, Luke, Marsiglio, Wyclif, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Hubmeier, Wesley, Stone, Miller, Russell, etc. "That Servant" corroborates our understanding of this in F 244, par. 2, 245, par. 1, 2, 251, 253, 273, 274; Reprints, 732, pars. 13-15.
Question:—Why does The Present Truth omit the comma after the word "secondarily" in the expression, "Secondarily Prophets"?
Answer:—In the Scripture (1 Cor. 12: 28) the comma is not placed between the words secondarily and prophets. And the fact that The Present Truth omits the comma is intended to imply that a comma does not belong there. As shown above, the word prophet for New Testament purposes is used both in a general and in a particular sense. In the general sense it includes all servants of the Church who have given inspired or uninspired discourses before others,
whether these be by the spoken word or the printed page. In the special sense it includes only the non-apostolic teachers of the general Church. Such teachers alone are meant by St. Paul when he writes, "Secondarily Prophets." And when The Present Truth is treating of such Prophets only, the Prophets in the Church in the particular sense of that word, it uses the expression, "Secondarily Prophets," to emphasize for the purpose of clearness that it means such Prophets only. The word "Secondarily" in this expression is a numerical adverb, not an attributive adjective, nor do we mean by the expression "Secondarily Prophets" to contrast such with (supposedly) primarily prophets. We simply use this Bible term "Secondarily Prophets" to indicate that we mean, not local prophets (orators in a local ecclesia), nor inspired men like the Old Testament prophets; but only the non—apostolic general teachers, the general elders, of the general Church. In other words, we use this term to prevent our being understood as meaning local elders who preach as local prophets. It is because the word prophet for New Testament purposes is used in the two above—mentioned senses, general and special, that we use the word "Secondarily" in connection with the expression "Prophets" to indicate that we are using the word prophet in its special sense exclusively, which exclusive meaning is conveyed in the expression "Secondarily Prophets" in 1 Cor. 12: 28; for St. Paul by that expression means the non-apostolic general elders, overseers, teachers, of the general Church, and not the elders of local ecclesias who preach. We, of course, do not use in the quotation the word "secondarily" as an adjective to modify the word prophets. It is an adverb in 1 Cor. 12: 28.
Question:—Are not the "Secondarily Prophets" (1 Cor. 12: 28; Eph. 4: 11) the seven angels of the Seven Churches of Rev. 1: 20, etc.—i.e., Paul, John, Arius, Waldo, Wyclif, Luther and Russell?
Answer:—In answering the question we will first
have to remove a misunderstanding in which the questioner is involved; that the seven angels represent seven individuals. While Vol. VII teaches this, evidently neither Scripture, Reason nor History so teaches (Z '16, 345, par. 5). It is evident from a little reflection on generally known facts, that two of these angels did not represent individuals. Therefore it would seem that the other five did not—e.g., the angel of the Church in Ephesus. It is true that St. Paul was the most able, zealous, fruitful and favored servant of the Truth in the first epoch of the Church (2 Cor. 11: 23-28); yea, he even had more especially "the care of all the [Gentile Christian] Churches," as St. Peter had more especially "the care of all the [Jewish Christian] Churches" (Gal. 2: 7, 8). Yet these facts did not make him the only one constituting the angel of the Church in Ephesus. We are to recall that all twelve Apostles had and exercised the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 18: 18; Acts 15: 7-29). Therefore, at least twelve persons were included in the angel of the Church in Ephesus (Z '16, 346, par. 5). Turning to the angel of the Church in Philadelphia, we can also readily and clearly see that Luther alone was not that angel; for other Reformers, some of them contemporaries of Luther, were used by the Lord to bring forth Truth, as it was due, Truth which Luther in some cases opposed violently, e.g., Zwingli brought forth some Truth on the Lord's Supper and Christ's Person for which Luther bitterly opposed him, even refusing him fellowship, because he believed, against his teaching, that Jesus' actual flesh and blood are received in the Lord's Supper and that His humanity is now omnipresent. Luther opposed the doctrine of the Millennium and of exclusive adult baptism, which Hubmeier taught against Luther's view. Servetus brought forth Truth on the unity of God against the trinity, as against Luther's doctrine; Wesley taught Truth on Sanctification vs. some of
Luther's errors thereon. Stone taught the separation of the Church and State, abolition of the creeds and the clergy class, etc., as against Luther's doctrines. Thus we see that Luther, though doubtless one of the leading ones in the angel of the Church in Philadelphia, did not alone constitute its angel. Our understanding of each of these angels, therefore, is that he represents the Apostles and all "Secondarily Prophets" who were the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand. Consequently, we would have to say that it would not be proper to say that the seven brothers mentioned in the question alone constitute the seven angels, though each one (John 17: 20; Rev. 12: 1) is a part of one of the seven angels. No one else than the Apostles and the special mouthpiece "Secondarily Prophets" seems to be included in these seven angels. These seven angels, therefore, include more than the seven mentioned in the question, thus a great deal more than the questioner thinks they include.
Question:—Why does The Present Truth so markedly emphasize the doctrine of the "Secondarily Prophets"?
Answer:—Because of the necessity of defending the Truth on the subject against the papistical claims (1) of the Society and (2) of the P.B.I. (1) The claims of the Society to be the exclusive channel for giving the seasonal meat, and for ruling the general work of the Church teach and imply that, except through its sanction and under its auspices, no one has a right to be a channel of communicating the Lord's message to "the Church which is His Body." Hence they claim that those of the pilgrims who were appointed through that Servant, and who are not laboring under its auspices have no right to be General Elders, i.e., teachers of the general Church, "Secondarily Prophets." Therefore at the Asbury Park Convention we set forth the thought that, since the vacancy of the office of that Servant, pilgrims in office at the time of his death until a special eye, hand and
mouth of the Lord is appointed, have the right apart from the auspices of the Society to publish a Truth paper, engage in pilgrim work and call General Conventions for the General Church, because of their office as General teachers of the Church, "Secondarily Prophets" (1 Cor. 12: 28; Eph. 4: 11). We explained the doctrine exactly as our Pastor explains the doctrine of General Elders in the references above given. Accordingly, we concluded that the Society had no power to unpilgrim these pilgrims, since they received their office from God through that Servant and not through the Society. (2) We also drew from the doctrine the conclusion that no one now living other than such pilgrims has the right to do these three things, and that even these could not do them, if a special eye, mouth and hand were appointed in the Church. The latter conclusion greatly displeased certain members of the P.B.I. Committee, who had not been such pilgrims, i.e., F.H. Magee and I.L. Margeson. Aug. 26, 1918, four of the P.B.I. Committee members, F.H. McGee, I.F. Hoskins, I.L. Margeson and H.C. Rockwell on the one hand, and on the other hand three former members of the Fort Pitt Committee, R. H. Hirsh, R. G. Jolly and ourself, engaged in a general debate on the activities and inactivities of the Fort Pitt Committee before the Philadelphia Church. On that occasion F.H. Magee, agreed with by his three colleagues, set forth the claim that no one had a right to do pilgrim work, unless he was authorized either by the Society or by the P.B.I., and that we, being authorized by neither organization, had no right to the pilgrim office. Thereupon we again defended our right to that office, as Divinely appointed thereto through our dear Pastor, and therefore were not in this office subject to appointment or dismissal by any human organization. These expressions of ours at those two assemblies were most violently misrepresented by the P.B.I., especially through its mouthpiece, F.H. Magee, in his "Brief Review" and
"Letter of Importance." These misrepresentations led us to write the above on Prophets and "Prophets," and to touch on other phases of the discussion raised by the P.B.I., by publishing the above questions and answers as replies to their further objections. We are satisfied that our understanding of the subject is that of the Scriptures and of that Servant.
On the subject of the advancing light the attitude of the P.B.I., as on other subjects, has been "unstable as water" (Gen. 49: 4). At first they claimed that our Pastor gave all the light that was to be expected, and that the Epiphany light means nothing more than that his writings will become clearer to the brethren in those parts that they did not previously understand. Latterly they have been admitting that on some of the prophecies, especially in the Revelation, more light may be expected. We congratulate them on this change of opinion, even though we cannot agree with much of what they think is advancing Truth, and believe much of what they reject as error to be advancing Truth. We are in heartiest accord with what they quote from an address of our Pastor to the pilgrims at the Celeron Convention (H '19, 117) against "manufacturing" "new light." Nor is there any other editor among the Truth people who adheres to our Pastor's charge on this subject more closely than ourself; for we wage uncompromising war against such "manufactured" "new light," as our readers know; and avoid accepting it and incorporating it into our teachings and writings. And contrary to the misrepresentations of the P.B.I., in our use of types we confine ourself almost exclusively to those to which the Scriptures and our dear Pastor give us the clue. They have been railing against us as indulging in "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." Let them prove their charge, if they can! We have defended our dear Pastor's interpretations against "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations," as all our readers know, against those whose presentations seem to be used by
the Adversary to the bewildering of the Lord's Flock, whether they have been doing this against the Parousia or Epiphany Truth, or whether they have been doing this against the Lord's Arrangements, Charter and Will given through that Servant. Nor have we had the least hesitation to do this against the opposition of almost all leaders singly or combinedly among the Lord's people; and, please God, we will continue so to do, until they cease from their false doctrines and their revolutionism!
Of course we have been the particular target at which the P.B.I. has been shooting its "arrows" on "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." To date none of their arrows have struck the mark, we only hear them whiz by! The particular charge that they file against us is our claim that now in the Epiphany there is much Truth becoming due, and that the Lord is pleased to use The Present Truth in giving much of it to the household. We pity the chargers, (1) because they saw some of it, and now have lost it; and (2) because they are now accepting many old "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations" of "foolish virgins" as advancing light, "manufactured" "new light." Such has always been the course of Truth repudiators. There must be something spiritually wrong with such repudiators. Why should there not in the Epiphany be such advancing light given as will enable the saints to do their Epiphany work, just as in the Parousia there was such advancing light given as enabled the saints to do their Parousia work? In the Epiphany the main works of the Priesthood are to lead Azazel's Goat in its two parts, i.e., both (1) among the Truth people and (2) among the nominal people of God from the door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court; and to do much toward the Levites, the New Creatures of those whose humanity is represented by Azazel's Goat (Lev. 16: 20, 21; Num. 8: 9, 13; 4: 5-15, 27, 28, 33; 7: 1-8). Then the Priesthood has a work to do toward the Youthful Worthies, also shown in
some of the above references; toward the antitypical Jehoram of Judah (2 Chro. 21: 12-15); toward the antitypical Herod, Herodias and Salome (Ps. 91: 13; Rev. 15: 2; 20: 4); as well as the work of avoiding doing anything toward antitypical Jehoram of Israel, Jehu, Ben-hadad and Haziel. Hence they must learn things about these different classes that they did not know during the Parousia, in order to act toward them as Epiphany conditions require of the Priesthood. The fact that the P.B.I. Board and Editors are blind to these Truths does not make them non— existent; rather it is a proof that they are not in priestly harmony with Epiphany conditions, and hence cannot co— operate with the Priests in doing the latters' Epiphany work. Our well—meant and arduous efforts to help them to remain in priestly harmony with Epiphany conditions, while we were yet with them, were fruitless; because, unknown to us, their time to be manifested as Levites had come. We comfort ourselves with the reflection that after they have properly undergone the experiences of Num. 8: 7, and in part those of Rev. 7: 14, they will recognize and appreciate our efforts that now seem to them to be unkind. That the Priests recognize them as Levites is due to the fact that the latter as Levites stand before the former as Priests, being set as Levites before the Priests by the antitypical Moses (Num. 8: 14). Presently recognizing themselves as antitypical Levites they will see the Priests as such. Then all will rejoice at God's special grace and mercy to the Priests, and His less special grace and mercy to the Levites (Rev. 19: 7, 8). Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Saints (Rev. 15: 3)!
We have been an interested reader of the Herald's series on "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." We are glad to note in it the absence of the pronouncedly papal spirit that characterized the article on The Object of An Organization, that was reviewed in Chap. III, and that characterized the P.B.I.'s course for some time. We also are glad to note that the "threatening"
and "channel" spirit of Vol. VII is likewise wanting in the Herald's series. Taken all in all we think that so far as this series has progressed, i.e., into Rev. 14—the Herald's treatment of the book is somewhat better in contents, and is much better in spirit than is that of Vol. VII, covering the same chapters. Further, we should say that this series and Vol. VII are very much better in our judgment than Carl Olson's Treatise covering the same chapters. We are indeed glad to make these acknowledgments, because we find it necessary to offer some necessary criticisms, which we present to the brethren for consideration.
(1) We note that the writers of this series do not have the key to the book. Nowhere do they mention it, and they give not a few interpretations that they would not give, if they had the key. This lack makes the series as a whole unconnected in its contents and makes its interpretations fail to be self—demonstrative. Hence it leaves a student of the book in uncertainty and unclearness on many points.
(2) Not infrequently finer features of the Revelation are not expounded at all. This is probably due to the writers' not understanding these features, which they accordingly pass by without mention. Why did they not follow our Pastor's example: not publish at all until all is clearly understood?
(3) An indecisiveness of treatment characterizes not a few of their statements, which is doubtless due to their uncertainty. Had they the key, and were it due time to expound the book, this and the preceding criticism would have been unnecessary; for these blemishes would not then have occurred in the series.
(4) We feel satisfied that the presentation of many unprofitable interpretations of various conflicting, and, to most Truth people, unknown views of writers not in the Truth, after the manner of many nominal-church commentators, is quite confusing to most of the Herald's readers among Truth people. We instance
the confusion on the treatment of the seven-headed and ten-horned beast.
(5) Of not a few details and of large sections—e.g., the first and second woes—they certainly give misinterpretations. The mixing of the literal and symbolic in the interpretations of these woes is sure proof of their erroneousness. If they had the key, they would not have interpreted Rev. 9: 1-21 of the Saracens and Ottoman Turks. Nor would they have seen Mohammed as the star having the key to the bottomless pit. Their interpretations of these two woes are those accepted by Adventists of various Schools, and by others, "Foolish Virgins"!
(6) They sometimes, though not usually, we are glad to say, favor the interpretations of others above those of that Servant, yet after the manner of fence straddlers they shift from one side to the other. This is particularly manifest in their treatment of the two witnesses, where they try to make it appear that our Pastor favors the view that they accept from "Foolish Virgins," while our Pastor taught, as also Rev. 11: 13 shows, that the three and a half days in which the witnesses were dead were during the French Revolution, which, however, the Finished Mystery does not correctly explain. Dr. Gordon's comment on Solomon (H '20, 74) is another example to the point.
(7) The greatest blemish in the Herald's exposition of Revelation is its adopting many wrong interpretations of "Foolish Virgins." Interpreters like Elliott, Barnes, Guinness, Gordon, etc., were not Wise Virgins. The first two God did not favor with a place in the cleansed sanctuary, and the last two, living in the Harvest, God did not favor with the Parousia Truth The Herald speaks much of their godliness. Of whatever character it was it was judged by the Lord as unworthy of recognition for reward with the special favor of the meat in due season from 1829 onward; hence they were not Wise Virgins; and therefore Priests should not look to them for Scriptural
interpretations, however much these "Foolish Virgins" may strike Levites as being specially enlightened and godly. In the Herald Editors' offering with their endorsement some of the vagaries of these "Foolish Virgins" as a true interpretation, they prove both their spiritual kinship with these "Foolish Virgins," and their Levitical standing before the Lord, in that thereby they offer strange fire before the Lord. While of course we are to use the facts of history, etc., that such and other scholarly men furnish us, we are not to accept their interpretations of these facts as taught by the hidden things of the Scriptures; unless they are true; and their few true ones they were not the first to see; for not seeing the deep things clearly they could not correctly explain them.
The Herald speaks much of the Historical School of Interpreters of Revelation, and claims that our Pastor was a member of that School. This we deny, though, of course, he held that its fulfillment was largely in the past. It is true that here and there glimpses of Revelation as some aspects of its features were due to be understood before 1874 were seen by the Faithful before 1874, and that detached parts of these glimpses were seen by others from the presentations of the Faithful; yet these views were very imperfect before 1874, even as the structure of the book shows that they would be. We might compare the increasing light on Revelation shining on the Faithful before 1874 to the increasing visibility of a high mountain to persons traveling toward it, from the time of their first catching a glimpse of it, as a speck on the horizon, until they can indistinctly make out its general outlines, however, without their perceiving and distinguishing clearly its varying parts, and their relations to one another. The "Foolish Virgins" at best could, with much intermingling error, perceive but parts of what the Wise Virgins saw. From 1874 onward the details of the Revelation come out more and more to the view of the Wise Virgins, while during
that time the Foolish Virgins, including Drs. Guinness, Gordon, etc., have wandered in "nocturnal hallucinations" on the Revelation, as well as on many other Biblical subjects. Whatever light any of those brothers had our Pastor had, minus the vagaries that they cherished, and plus all the rest of the seasonal light that they did not have. Hence it is wholly unnecessary and unprofitable, yea injurious for edification for the Priesthood to study what they offer; but it is necessary and profitable for their edification to study what he offers. Nor did he get his information from the Historical School of Interpreters of Revelation. He received it from the Lord by special illumination. Great indeed is the guilt of the Herald Editors for their offering their readers the "delusive phosphorus" flashed forth by these "Foolish Virgins" as genuine light.
As that Servant (A, 12) passed by the "embalmed" and unclean doctrinal meat of the theologians and creeds, and brought forth the doctrinal meat in due season out of the Divine storehouse, so did he also do with respect to the book of Revelation. And as he declared that, apart from brief explanations and the Sunday School Lessons, he stopped during the eighties writing on the book, because in attempting to open various of its parts he found himself making mistakes, from which he learned that much in the book was not yet due; so we could not expect Drs. Guinness, Gordon, etc., at that and a later time to get the meat, not yet due, from the storehouse, which in 1879 was put into "that Servant's" charge. Therefore the Herald's suggestions to use its articles for Berean Studies on the Revelation, we fear, will lead to further darkening of its readers' minds on that book; for the series on "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" contains many "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations," and thus offers strange fire before the Lord. Strange as at first thought it might seem, it is to be expected that brethren who have represented a true teacher of
God's people to be a self-exalted and self-appointed teacher of subtle error, and of "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations" should go so far astray in these very particulars (Rom. 2: 1). Our Pastor suspended Bro. Toole from the pilgrim staff for 20 months from Jan., 1915, to Sept., 1916 (while Jordan was receiving its first smiting) because he, though on a comparatively small scale, was spreading some published views of "Foolish Virgins" among the brethren. Should we be surprised that for and by a worse form of the same offense the Herald Editors now are by God being publicly manifested as cut off from the Priesthood (Lev. 10: 1, 2)?
We imagine that some will say, Why do you criticize the Herald's articles on the Revelation; and at the same time offer nothing in their stead? This is a reasonable question; and to it we give three answers:
(1) We believe that it is the Lord's will that the Levites be given a rather free hand first to present, among other things, their views on Revelation; and that only afterward will He furnish through some Priest the proper interpretation of the book, and thus will give another manifestation of who are Levites and who are Priests.
(2) We believe that the Lord wants the true interpretation of the book to be deferred until all of His people will have such experiences as will make the true interpretation of that book a refreshment and blessing to all of them, and not a matter of controversy and heartaches to nearly all of them. Hence apart from a few detached references we are silent on features of that book not previously understood.
(3) Our beloved Pastor said that, until Rev. 17: 9-11 would be fulfilled, he would not write Vol. VII, i.e., write his long promised exposition of the book of Revelation for the Church. This answer implies that he considered it to be the Lord's will that he should not write that exposition before the symbolic earthquake. In answer to a question as to why he
had not yet written Vol. VII, he, in 1916 in the Bethel dining room, told the family that there were a number of things in the Revelation that were not yet clear to him, and that until they did become clear to him, he would not write that book. He then instanced the following four things especially that he did not understand: (1) The key of the book, (2) the 1600 furlongs, (3) the number of the Beast's name (though he had previously expressed himself as favorable to the interpretation offered nearly 100 years ago on the name on the Pope's crown), and (4) the seven-headed and ten-horned beast of Revelation 17, particularly verses 9-11. He further declared that he did not believe that the last point would be certainly understood until verses 9-11 had been fulfilled. Then, he added, he would write the book as an explanation of past events, which would demonstrate the correctness of his understanding. If the writers of the three explanations that since his death are being set forth before God's people—according to our understanding, Merarite, Kohathite and Gershonite explanations of the Revelation—had followed our dear Pastor's announced intention on this point, they would not have offered so much strange fire before the Lord; nor deceived so many of God's people; nor brought so much needless reproach and injury upon His Truth, so much sufferings upon His people, and so much properly avoidable disapproval of our Pastor's memory. What a fearful thing it is to run ahead of the Lord. Let us learn to "wait on the Lord!"
If in the providence of God it ever becomes our privilege to write an exposition of the Revelation for the Church, it will be in keeping with the spirit of the above-announced intention of that faithful and wise Servant.
In the April, 1937, issue of the Dawn, pages 9-14, is an article that, without mentioning us by name, attempts to refute our teaching on the reaping
as ending by Oct., 1914, and the gleaning in 1916, and to prove that the reaping is still going on and will continue up to very shortly—probably less than a year—before the last member of Christ's body goes beyond the vail. The question of the end of the reaping is one of such vast practical importance, that we may be sure that the God of wisdom, justice, love and power would not let it remain in uncertainty for His faithful children; for if the reaping is still going on, the priesthood should and would be engaged in it, and their ceasing from it and their working toward Azazel's Goat would be detrimental to the Truth, very reprehensible in the Lord's sight and a gross wrong against those consecrating since Oct., 1914; and on the other hand, if the reaping is finished, the attempt to continue to engage in an alleged reaping work would be detrimental to the Truth, reprehensible in the Lord's sight and a gross wrong, whose fatal consequences we will show later on, against those consecrating since Oct., 1914. The issues being so very important, we may be certain that our loving Father has spoken on this subject in no uncertain terms, that those who are walking in the light may see in this respect just what is "that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." We have often written on this subject and each time, besides the former arguments in defense of our position, we have given new ones, even as should be expected to be the case in view of the fact that "the path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and more unto the full [not perfect] day" (Prov. 4: 18). But in this chapter we will not repeat our former arguments, which number 56, and which the reader will find in Studies, Vol. III, 387-404. Rather we will give seven new ones and then answer the Dawn's contentions on the reaping still continuing. Let it not be forgotten that the Dawn is largely the P.B.I. masking under another name. Their and the P.B.I.'s pertinent view is the same. Our new reasons follow:
(57) The unfolding of the Epiphany Truth beginning in 1916 proves that previously the Parousia Truth had been completed, and hence had done its work of reaping the Church. (58) Is. 52: 8 tells us that while the Lord would be gathering His Little Flock out of Babylonian captivity, which was accomplished by the reaping and gleaning work, the watchmen (pilgrims, auxiliary pilgrims, evangelists and elders) would see eye to eye, which was the case up to Passover, 1916. But since 1916 in England, since 1917 in America, and then thereafter, throughout the world, these watchmen have more and more come into disagreement. And since their agreement was to last until the reaping and gleaning were to be finished ("when the Lord shall bring again Zion"), and since now they greatly disagree, and that beginning in 1916, the reaping and gleaning must have been finished early in 1916, when their seeing eye to eye began to end. (59) Our Lord's prophecy (Luke 13: 24-27) has for twenty years been fulfilling; in that many unbegotten consecrated ones (v. 24) have been seeking for admission to the high calling in vain, and that because the door is shut (v. 25); and in spite of their claims of being students of Jesus' words and that His teachings are in harmony with their ways [streets] (vs. 26, 27), He tells them that He has never recognized them as Body members (vs. 25, 27), which He is telling them through the above— given and other proofs that the reaping ended by Oct., 1914, and the gleaning by Passover, 1916. (60) The teaching that the high calling is still open to new aspirants after the destruction of antitypical Sodom began (Sept. 21, 1914) is the false doctrine (wine) with which antitypical Lot's two daughters (certain Youthful Worthies and tentatively justified ones) made antitypical Lot (uncleansed Great Company members) symbolically drunk (reeling with error, Gen. 19: 30-38), which consideration